The Winning Strategy II: The Voters

“When the right-wing noise machine starts promoting another alleged scandal, you shouldn’t suspect that it’s fake — you should presume that it’s fake, until further evidence becomes available,” columnist Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times.

So you wonder why the Liberal Media won’t cover or covers up stories like Rev. Wright, The Black Panthers Case, ACORN scandal, etc.

Or at least they won’t cover it like “journalists” actually would.

They are the Ministry of Truth after all.

So now we come to the Vote.

Supposed to be the most sacred act in America.

Unless you want to win by any means necessary that is. The end justifies the means.

So cast yourself back to 2000.

VP Al Gore has won the popular vote but not the Electoral College.

Forget all the crap about “hanging chads” and focus on the Electoral College.

Liberals have been fuming mad about this for 10 years.

Yes, it was the first time in nearly 200 years that this occurred. But it happened to THEM.

The vastly superior Liberal Progressives. That can’t be allowed to stand.

Problem is, it’s in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state’s legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.

Citizens vote for electors, representing a state, who are the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election. In early U.S. history, some state laws delegated the choice of electors to the state legislature. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.

And here’s where the Liberals want to corrupt the process.

The Electoral College is there to prevent the most populace states for running roughshod over the smaller states. Everyone gets a proportional vote.

But the liberals have been pissed that they lost to George W Bush in 2000 in the Electoral College ever since.

Not for any other reason that pure partisanship.

And now they want to subvert it, for pure partisanship. Along with other tactics to cheat to win.

It’s called euphemistically, The National Popular Vote Bill.

And it has begun in liberal states.

Under the proposed law, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign’s website.

It sounds innocent enough, doesn’t it? But that’s just the apple. There is a donkey-shaped snake in this garden.

This effort began innocently enough several years ago when a few law professors were doing what some might say they do best: engaging in mental gymnastics, apparently just for the fun of it. Or maybe as a part of a continuing effort to see who can outdo the other, coming up with imaginative ways to legally do something that was supposed to be illegal. Could they come up with a way to eliminate the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution?

Remember this isn’t about changing the Constitution. This is about manipulating it.

Keeping the system, but pass laws that gut it and hollow it so it means nothing.

Then you have, Amnesty for 12 million new Democrats.

You have ACORN, busted for voter fraud.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice’s Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal “Motor Voter” law — Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

You have The New Black Panther Voter Intimidation case that the Dept of Justice refuses to handle.

“We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”

Access for minorities that is…

Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What’s more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party’s candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri’s voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue. (WSJ)

So you have a Dept of Justice that will go after Arizona for Illegal immigration enforcement but will ignore voter fraud and voter intimidation.

You have a Justice Department that isn’t interested in the rule of law, but the rule of ideology.

You have the Propaganda of the Liberal Media that has now been absolutely been proven to be manipulating the facts for their own agenda.

The SEIU thugs (who beat up a Tea Party activist last year and got away with it, by the way)

Class Warfare rhetoric.

Race Wars (getting minorities to vote against “crackers”– aka Republicans)

“You’re a Racist” if you disagree.

The DISCLOSE Act that would restrict corporations (aka non-liberals mostly) and favor Union speech again.

And you have hundreds of thousands of  “illegal voters” out there that you refuse to clean off the books (i.e. the deceased, or felons, etc).

Pack the courts with activist Judges and liberal ideologues.

And you have the makings of a banana republic farce where you hold an election just to make it look like it matters but in point of fact you’ve rigged the outcome.

That would work for the progressive liberal superiority complex now wouldn’t it.

It’s “fair”. 🙂

They win every time. That’s “democratic” 🙂

Five states have so far endorsed this ill-advised scheme to skirt the Constitution: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington (61 electoral votes). The latest fronts in this battle are Massachusetts (12 electoral votes) and New York (31 electoral votes). The Massachusetts House and New York Senate have both approved the bills, so approval by the Massachusetts Senate and New York Assembly would send the measure to the states’ respective governors. Both states could act at any time. Three other state legislatures have approved NPV, although the bills were vetoed: California, Rhode Island, and Vermont (62 electoral votes). The Rhode Island House later rejected the measure. These latter states remain important because of a lawsuit that could be filed in an attempt to overturn the vetoes.

If each of these states is included, NPV could have as many as 166 electoral votes in favor of its scheme. It needs 270 to essentially eliminate the Electoral College. NPV is close to success, yet because of the manner in which it is seeking change, the vast majority of the country remains completely unaware that the presidential election system is so close to such radical change.

So you secretly line up your forces.

That’s very “democratic” isn’t it 🙂

The country can’t conduct one coherent national election when there are 51 different sets of state and local election codes in place. Today, the variance among state election laws is irrelevant because each state (plus D.C.) need accomplish nothing more than elect its own slate of electors. In essence, Americans conduct 51 different elections and expect 51 different sets of results. NPV, by contrast, expects to smash these 51 sets of laws into one completely national result. It won’t work. Instead, the resulting chaos will make Florida 2000 look like a picnic. (campaignfreedom.com)

So I guess the federal government would have to come and have “supremacy” in order to have an orderly election process and ensure it was “fair” for all. 🙂

And it would bring “order” to the “chaos”…

Sssssssssssssssssssssss  🙂

The Winning Strategy Part 1: The Media

November 2010.

The most important election in American History.

And the Democrats know it.

So, get ready for anything goes.

Because after all, the end justifies the means.

There will be all out Nuclear Race War.

Class Warfare.

Bush Derangement Syndrome will be epidemic.

You’ll up to the sky in kitchen sinks.

Nothing will actually be off limits.

Everyone of you who even hints at disagreeing with them is a Racist or an Uncle Tom.

You know who you are. 🙂

And The Mainstream Media will be right there in their propaganda roll as the Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Think how underplayed the greatest lie of the Obama administration is being ignored, That of the Health Care Mandate as a Tax then you get the idea.

Then it came out this week that many in the News Media (not just “commentators”) actively and with political forethought deliberately ignored, suppressed or actively worked against the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story when it broke and actively worked to get Obama elected in general by hook or by crook.

Absolutely no “objectivity” or “journalism” need apply.

Did you notice how fast it disappeared?  And anyone who brought it  after that was…<<drum roll>>…A RACIST! 🙂

And if you disagreed with Obama, you were de facto a Racist?

Then after he was elected the Tea Party sprung up, and guess what, they were Racists too!!

It was no accident. I was a calculated plan by the very journalists themselves.

Someone found a forum where “journalists” hung out and said what they really think.

But don’t expect to here it on the Mainstream Media, the very people who were saying it. 🙂

Daily Caller: It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Specifically, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Ackerman wrote on the Journolist listserv in April 2008. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

ABC being the “tough questions” asked of the President about Rev. Wright in April 2008, just after it broke.

How dare they! That must be stopped!

The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson’s] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

Karl Rove played down the notion that members of the mainstream press agreed with Ackerman but he said he found it curious that such talk was tolerated within the group. It was important, he added, not to judge the motives of members who chose not to respond.

“I thought it was a revealing insight in the attitude of one minor player in the D.C. world of journalism,” Rove said of Ackerman’s comments. “It’s an even more important insight into a broader group of more prominent journalists that they seem to be willing to tolerate the suggestion that they should all tell a deliberate lie or that they should take somebody’s head and shove it through a plate glass window. I would hope that somebody would say, ‘Mr. Ackerman, do you really believe we ought to fabricate a lie about people just because we don’t agree with them?’”

Barnes added that even if there was an effort on the left to smear opponents as racists, the plan wouldn’t work.

“The charge has been made so often without any evidence that it has lost its sting,” he said. “It has become the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.”

Interview on FOX: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/publisher-neil-patel-chats-with-megyn-kelly-about-journolist/

And Now Part II: The Enemies List

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.

When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air…

“If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

A comment on the website after the stories summed it up beautifully:

This expose simply confirms what many of us have known all along. Liberals in the MSM are rigid idealogues who write for each other. They passionately believe they are on the side the angels while conservatives are just plain evil. In their world the ends justify the means and advocacy journalism is their contribution to advancing the cause. They are no better than the “journalists” who wrote for TASS or PRAVDA and their mindset is as rigid and narrow as what you would find in areas where the Taliban has complete control.

Excerpts: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/

Tomorrow, the question will be how do you fix voters…CHEAT like You have CHEATED before! 🙂
One Hint: The Electoral College is Evil and must be stopped! 🙂

Stop The FOX in MY Hen House

We Interrupt the series on how Cap & Trade will destroy America for bit of Liberal silliness.

Dateline: Washington D.C.

The White House has Declared at War on  Fox News!

Why?

Because they won’t join the rest of the Ministry of Truth in slobbering praise and awe all over the White House and the Democrat Congress.

They actually ask questions.

Dear God, NOT THAT!

The SKY IS FALLING!

These hens are threatened by someone who won’t go along with the Party Line.

And the White House’s conflict with Fox News? “It’s not so much a conflict,” Chief of Staff Raul Emanuel said. Fox News is simply “not a news organization, so much as it has a perspective.”

OH MY GOD! It Has a Perspective! The Anti-Christ has been let loose upon the world!

Hide the women and Children!

Obama Guru Advisor David Axelrod on ABC: “The only argument that Anita (Dunn. White House Communications Director) was making is that they are not really a news organization, if you watch even its not even their commentators, but a lot of their news program. It’s really not news, it’s pushing a point of view and the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours, ought not to treat them that way. And we’re not going to treat them that way, we’re going to appear on their shows and participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.”

OH MY GOD! A point of View! No, saw it ain’t so Joe!

So let’s all just walk away and ignore them, if we put them in the corner and just pretend their not there maybe they will just go away.

And don’t anyone talk to them. They’re crazy!

They are not of the body! 🙂

Has he ever watched MSDNC or ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or read the New York Times or AP??

They have a “perspective” too.

But since it is to kiss his bosses ring and bend over and prostrate themselves at his holy feet I suppose it is a matter of perspective. 🙂

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

When the Ministry of Truth was at war with George W Bush, that was ok though and that how news was suppose to behave. 🙂

And by now you should now what Alinsky Liberals do to people that disagree with them.

ATTACK. DESTROY! CENSOR!

This, by the way is the same Mao-Tse Tung “is one of my favourite philosophers” Dunn who in recent days was caught saying  effectively, ‘Oh, and all of you in the Ministry of Truth shall do the same. After all, we control the media from the White House, don’t we’:

President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.

“Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.

“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.

Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”

“I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.” President Obama on Nov 4, 2008. But since I and my minions control the press and the press is more than willing to be controlled I don’t really have to mean it.

I can say damned fool thing I want to  and they won’t bat an eye. They never did over Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, ACORN, Frank Marshall Davis,Father Pfleger,Saul Alinsky,Bernadine Dohrn, Alice Palmer, and my 30 self-named “Czars”…

But it sounds good, don’t it.

Kinda like “not one dime” or “no one under 250,000 will be taxed”, “will not add to the deficit”

“Hope and Change”

How is that going to happen? and why are all your plans the exact opposite of what you say?

No one from CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times or the AP will ask any of these questions. They don’t even think they’re important.

But There’s a FOX in their hen house and they want it NUKED! NOW!

They keep telling people things we don’t want them to hear  and going off message!  Damn Them!

They must be made into unpeople.

We don’t wanna talk to you anymore. <<sticking tongue out>>

On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”(NYT)

Childish, ain’t it folks.

The Liberals even have a name for it, Faux News.

But this is your tolerant, more open, Bi-Partisan, Give Unity a new chance, Give peace a Chance, Yes we Can Transparent, “post partisan” politics, man of the little people President.

“The divisions, the stereotypes, the scapegoating, the ease with which we blame the plight of ourselves on others, all of that distracts us from the common challenges we face..” Senator Obama Jan 21st, 2008

Ain’t he just Magnificent! 🙂

If Obama refuses to deal with them, he is making a decision – plain and simple – that he doesn’t want to talk to anyone who will seriously challenge him. That is irresponsible. He is not doing his job. He is choosing to serve himself rather than give the American people answers to reasonable if not-always-friendly questions.

And since this is indefensible, he has his people try to rationalize it by painting Fox News Channel as less than a real news organization. Because it has a point of view – like, everyone.

And if the President can’t or won’t handle tough questions what kind of a Leader is he?

New York Times:

The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.

Yes, for god’s sake let’s get back to the Imperial President. What is he, Darth Obama? 🙂

So join the Rebellion and really annoy the Imperials and watch FOX. 🙂

You might actually learn something you weren’t supposed to know.